Tim Miller: Possible Lawsuit against Casey

[NavySubMom]

Because they will NEVER get OCA to admit guilt for Caylee's death. What they want to know, by asking about George and the 911 call that Caylee drowned on that day -is was Caylee dead on June 16th. Can they get OCA to admit she was dead, (but not to admit her own guilt-which is what the George/911 segway is all about)

Dead = Why Search? = BINGO!!!

I see completely now, I was thinking the CM/LF and Greene and Munyon somehow crafted this as 2 new questions today, which is NOT what happened at all. I just realized like a lightbulb going off these are questions from TES's attorneys that already existed,

with all of the lies and deception and b.s. from the DT during the whole trial fiasco, I see CONSPIRACIES everywhere I go with this bunch :floorlaugh:

ETA: now I feel like a real azz .......

Now I don't even remember what I was asking about here :innocent:

 

[logicalgirl]

I see completely now, I was thinking the CM/LF and Greene and Munyon somehow crafted this as 2 new questions today, which is NOT what happened at all. I just realized like a lightbulb going off these are questions from TES's attorneys that already existed,

with all of the lies and deception and b.s. from the DT during the whole trial fiasco, I see CONSPIRACIES everywhere I go with this bunch :floorlaugh:

ETA: now I feel like a real azz .......

Now I don't even remember what I was asking about here :innocent:

OMG you cracked me up!! It has been that kind of a day hasn't it?:floorlaugh: And you with your four million thank you's!

Now I have to sit here and play with the kinds of answers she could give to try to wiggle out of all of this.

The only way I can think is - ack - for them to appeal!

 

[heidisams]

Okay, so the first question will get her to admit Caylee drowned by asking her to admit she did not know if George called 911 after one of them found Caylee dead which will lead into the 2nd where she will admit she was aware TES was searching for Caylee..

:waitasec:...hmmm...:waitasec: I think I got it...

ITA... I think the first question is to establish culpability... if GA didn't place a call and took off with Caylee, and then kc doesn't do a anything at all...that is a crime! Something the jury should've realized!!!! But, since they didn't I think this is a way to get that negligence in there.... I hope I explained that right...it always works out so much better in my head...

 

[Well Done 99]

IMO they have no choice but to go with the story she's 'sticking with'.
Whether or not 911 was called is not up for debate because it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to establish that that never happened.
As their 'in', they still need to involve George in the question however .... because she involved him.
Regardless, he's off the hook because HE didn't tell any such lies at the time or later. In fact, all George did was search for a child - whether he had an inkling she was already dead or not..
It's all very crafty and IMO sticks her squarely between a rock and a hard place.
She wanted to involve George in it, she's got her wish.

 

[logicalgirl]

IMO they have no choice but to go with the story she's 'sticking with'.
Whether or not 911 was called is not up for debate because it doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to establish that that never happened.
As their 'in', they still need to involve George in the question however .... because she involved him.
Regardless, he's off the hook because HE didn't tell any such lies at the time or later. In fact, all George did was search for a child - whether he had an inkling she was already dead or not..
It's all very crafty and IMO sticks her squarely between a rock and a hard place.
She wanted to involve George in it, she's got her wish.

Sure she might get her wish, but George isn't a player in this case. For her to bring George into it - she has to admit she knew Caylee was dead. That's all they want. Admit she knew Caylee was dead on June 16th.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

It is much too crafty for me to understand! For me it is :whoosh: whooshing over my head. Why not simply ask if George told her Caylee was dead on that date? What does throwing in a 911 call achieve? And what does the question accomplish by asking only about George, why didn't it include her not calling as well.

And what if she just claims she didn't know if he had called or not? What, then, would that answer prove? (Oh, are the psych evals definitely going to be used as evidence in this case?)

I so hate being the only one too dense to understand! Please forgive.

 

[chefmom]

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that during the 31 days Caylee was missing GA had called 911 to report his missing gas can, but KC would have us believe he wouldn't call 911 for his drowned granddaughter? :waitasec:

 

[heidisams]

Lol.... re-reading that I didn't explain it right... meant basically it shows kc's culpability/knowledge of the death... and her involvement (as I see it, its a crime!) ... I can't believe I'm even talking about this drowning nonsense like its fact! I'm going down the rabbit hole!!! ikes!

 

[katydid23]

It is much too crafty for me to understand! For me it is :whoosh: whooshing over my head. Why not simply ask if George told her Caylee was dead on that date? What does throwing in a 911 call achieve? And what does the question accomplish by asking only about George, why didn't it include her not calling as well.

And what if she just claims she didn't know if he had called or not? What, then, would that answer prove? (Oh, are the psych evals definitely going to be used as evidence in this case?)

I so hate being the only one too dense to understand! Please forgive.

I think the 911 call is added because it is against the law not to report the death of a child. And the question included both of them.[ Did either of you call 911...]

If she says that she didn't know then she is proven to be lying in the OS version of events, because she ADMITS that they chose to cover it up.

So basically they are forcing her to admit that the Opening Statement was a lie, otherwise she will owe TES some $.

 

[logicalgirl]

It is much too crafty for me to understand! For me it is :whoosh: whooshing over my head. Why not simply ask if George told her Caylee was dead on that date? What does throwing in a 911 call achieve? And what does the question accomplish by asking only about George, why didn't it include her not calling as well.

And what if she just claims she didn't know if he had called or not? What, then, would that answer prove? (Oh, are the psych evals definitely going to be used as evidence in this case?)

I so hate being the only one too dense to understand! Please forgive.

LOL - this is just the way I see it.

She can't answer part of the question. It looks like they are asking about George and the 911 call, but the rest of the question is when Caylee drowned/ was dead.

So she can hum and haw as much as she likes about George - but this is a civil case and she has expressed concern that she not incriminate herself in her criminal case for which she was found not guilty. So all she has to do is admit she knew Caylee was dead on June 16th, not by whose hand or how.

 

[logicalgirl]

I think the 911 call is added because it is against the law not to report the death of a child. And the question included both of them.[ Did either of you call 911...]

If she says that she didn't know then she is proven to be lying in the OS version of events, because she ADMITS that they chose to cover it up.

So basically they are forcing her to admit that the Opening Statement was a lie, otherwise she will owe TES some $.

BBY: No - I don't think so. She admits the OS was a lie and I think it has some ramifications on her criminal case and it doesn't hurt TES because it underlines that she is a liar and how can the judge or jury believe anything she says??

This gal is definitely stuck in a box....or a rat maze....

 

[Talina]

What I don't understand is why the judge previously ruled that TES can depose her for 7 hours, then says today she only has to answer these two questions and gives her 10 days to do it. Sounds like she is permitted to do so in writing.

Are these questions from some sort of discovery document served to defense or is this related to what she will be limited to answering in the deposition.

I know in civil litigation I've been involved in at work has been first discovery, which included questions you had to respond to in writing, under oath, and then depositions followed once each side has a chance to review the discovery items and answers.

So, I wonder if the hearing was because she was trying to plead the 5th on all the discovery questions and the judge ruled she at least had to answer these two. Then we'll see later how she "performs" during her deposition.

IMO

 

[katydid23]

BBY: No - I don't think so. She admits the OS was a lie and I think it has some ramifications on her criminal case and it doesn't hurt TES because it underlines that she is a liar and how can the judge or jury believe anything she says??

This gal is definitely stuck in a box....or a rat maze....

I think we are essentially saying the same thing.

 

[ExpectingUnicorns]

I think the 911 call is added because it is against the law not to report the death of a child. And the question included both of them.[ Did either of you call 911...]

If she says that she didn't know then she is proven to be lying in the OS version of events, because she ADMITS that they chose to cover it up.

So basically they are forcing her to admit that the Opening Statement was a lie, otherwise she will owe TES some $.

Thank you for trying to help, katydid. RBBM. "Admit that you did not observe or hear George Anthony call 911 at any time to report that he or you had discovered that Caylee Marie Anthony had drowned in the swimming poll at your parents' house on or about June 16, 2008."

She would only be admitting that he didn't call and it has already been insinuated that he was badgering her into compliance.

 

[Well Done 99]

Sure she might get her wish, but George isn't a player in this case. For her to bring George into it - she has to admit she knew Caylee was dead. That's all they want. Admit she knew Caylee was dead on June 16th.

Yep. If she now lies her way around her original lie, she's lying again.
Anything else has to be an admission she killed her daughter.

 

[katydid23]

Thank you for trying to help, katydid. RBBM. "Admit that you did not observe or hear George Anthony call 911 at any time to report that he or you had discovered that Caylee Marie Anthony had drowned in the swimming poll at your parents' house on or about June 16, 2008."

She would only be admitting that he didn't call and it has already been insinuated that he was badgering her into compliance.

Yes, but by saying that they did not call, or even that HE did not call, she will automatically be admitting that she KNEW Caylee was dead. Once she admits that, she will owe the $to TES.

 

[Talina]

Yes, but by saying that they did not call, or even that HE did not call, she will automatically be admitting that she KNEW Caylee was dead. Once she admits that, she will owe the $to TES.

I see how that could be argued but I don't think that is a sure bet.

For instance, her answer to that first question can be affirmative. Quick short answer. Yes, I'll admit that.

But the longer answer which she will likey not say since you don't answer more that the precise question would be, but on the other hand, why would I have seen or observed that call or even been convinced he should make it? I was in shock, he was telling me that "Daddy would handle things" and left with Caylee. I then left and had no idea for weeks what he had done and still didn't know until her remains were found that she was deceased. (that would in a way fall in line with the garbage she told those two doctors in the depositions).

Remember we can only hold her to what she, herself, has said. She can not legally be held to what her attorney said in his OS. She could just outright say today that he did not tell her true, full side of it and what she told the doctors is what she told him. He just modified it on his own without her knowing he was going to do that.

IMO

Now, the 2nd question can be answered, yes she knew they were searching but then if she sticks to her other story that she had no idea until the remains were found what had really happened, she is still off on that 2nd question as well.

 

[katydid23]

I don't think she can pretend that she did not know Caylee was dead at that time. She sat and cried all throughout Baez's OS, as if she was going through it all over again. imoo

...remember,she 'cried and cried and cried' and she was in shock because of the tragic death. :furious:

 

[Talina]

I don't think she can pretend that she did not know Caylee was dead at that time. She sat and cried all throughout Baez's OS, as if she was going through it all over again. imoo

...remember,she 'cried and cried and cried' and she was in shock because of the tragic death. :furious:

I'd have to go back and watch the video to be 100% certain (which I refuse to do) but I seem to recall that her tears during his OS didn't start until his OS got to the part about her being molested. It seemed through the whole trial, the tears and poor pitiful me expressions, happened only when it was about her.

IMO

 

[RANCH]

I see how that could be argued but I don't think that is a sure bet.

For instance, her answer to that first question can be affirmative. Quick short answer. Yes, I'll admit that.

But the longer answer which she will likey not say since you don't answer more that the precise question would be, but on the other hand, why would I have seen or observed that call or even been convinced he should make it? I was in shock, he was telling me that "Daddy would handle things" and left with Caylee. I then left and had no idea for weeks what he had done and still didn't know until her remains were found that she was deceased. (that would in a way fall in line with the garbage she told those two doctors in the depositions).

Remember we can only hold her to what she, herself, has said. She can not legally be held to what her attorney said in his OS. She could just outright say today that he did not tell her true, full side of it and what she told the doctors is what she told him. He just modified it on his own without her knowing he was going to do that.

IMO

Now, the 2nd question can be answered, yes she knew they were searching but then if she sticks to her other story that she had no idea until the remains were found what had really happened, she is still off on that 2nd question as well.

I can see your point about KC claiming that George took Caylee away and she didn't know if she was dead at that time. I don't think too many people will buy that story. But who knows, the jury in the criminal case sure bought into the lies.